Saturday, March 7, 2009

Mitt, Newt and Revolution

Below is a link to an article by Kathryn Jean Lopez on In it she speaks of how she feels Mitt Romney has shown what she feels the Republican party needs. A reasoned alternative to Obama’s “universal government”.

She quotes Mitt Romney.
Our plans must have at least one common thread -- they must make America stronger. Better education strengthens our kids; better health care strengthens our citizens; and bringing our budget into balance strengthens our economy and preserves our future.

She uses that quote to show how with that undergirding; well thought out solutions based upon the idea that you are doing what is good for the country, can keep the Republicans from the need of stooping to bickering and the maniacal ego stroking politics we see in our party when lacking a vision we happily dine upon ourselves instead of our enemy. The media is part of that stroking process. Part of that trap.

The second part about education, health care and balancing budgets, tells us where we as a party need to focus our work so that we can come up with solutions that work. These are what the people care about, this is what makes us strong, this is how we can recommit ourselves to the community. To America. Through our vision of making America stronger.

Dick Armey had an interview on Newsmax television.
-----newsmax link-----

I transcribed this. “When it’s about you, you lose. When it’s about America you win.”

Further on Dick Armey said. “If our people can get back up on the stage with a plan for America, with a notion of respect and admiration tor this great country and its heritage, and hopes for its future that are born out of that. (notion)” We will win. People will vote for that.

The interview talked of how Reagan kept petty politics out of the office. He said President Reagan wanted to talk Policy not Politics as President. Armey was contrasting Obama listening and scheming with Rahm Emmanuel (on company time) over how to get Rush Limbaugh.

I have blogged lately and for awhile about the British Conservatives and most recently about George Osborne’s speech. The thrust of that party has been to present workable concrete solutions that will help their country. The English are overwhelmingly listening. Polls are going the Conservative way in ever increasing numbers.

Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich and John Boehner et all know this because they did it in ‘94’. Reagan did also and they both were swept into power. That is the key. The other key that Armey, Gingrich, Boehner et all had was Carter and failed liberal policies.

Well at the reckless pace of Obama's plunge into socialism the American people will not need much of a nudge to have them see the similarities. If the economy doesn't get better and we continue to lose our personal freedoms; the public will not only be in a mood to nudge back, but get out the broom for a clean sweep.

We need to be ready as Reagan was, not by attack politics but by the integrity of his vision. As can be inferred by the Armey interview, Reagan kept to the vision and won reelection, the party didn’t and started losing ground.

Kathryn Jean Lopez, senses that is what the Party needs now, and that Mitt Romney is beginning to follow that path. Perhaps follow is the wrong word. He has always followed that path, but now after the recent election, the voters seem sick of personal attack politics and he may seem crisper and on point.

Times have changed since the last primary. Mitt has stayed the same but now his path seems new and bright. Seems like a fresh face. With proven workable ideas on fixing what is wrong, based on a vision of individual freedom from ever encroaching big government. Even during his losing bid last time, he never lost focus on what was important. For that I gained respect for him, and for the integrity of his beliefs. Others I'm sure did too.

Lopez in her article said the following.
Romney delivered specifics -- not partisan bickering, not quisling compromise, not frightened rhetoric, but an introduction to the straight-up nitty-gritty.
I whole heartily agree. I especially like the phrase “quisling compromise”. Quisling was after all the ultimate “go along to get along” kind of guy. Right along with Neville Chamberlin, history and the world has judged how wrong they had been. How they were hurting the very people they were claiming to help.

If you want to see some “nitty-gritty” see my last post about George Osborne the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Conservative Party in England.

The only thing he lacked was keeping the vision at the fore.

That will be Mitt Romney’s task. He must keep on the task of fixing problems with solutions while reminding us of our strength and leading us to our destiny.

While the media and the Democrats will try their hardest to sidetrack him and the country away from real solutions; we must focus on the vision. We must stay out of personal attack politics. As Armey said we need to talk policy not politics.

Reagan did it by his optimism. He made optimism part of the vision. That was his gift. Let us make it ours.

Mitt just needs to keep doing what he’s doing.

Maybe then we the public will have something other than the current “frightened rhetoric” and “Partisan bickering” to get behind.

I want to here of the good this country can do, and a plan to do it of which I can feel a part. I would vote for that.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

Thursday, March 5, 2009

How Much Free Money does it Take to Screw In an Economy?


Just posted a post and I ran across this. Wanted to break it here.

I’ve been blogging about the resurgent Conservative Party in England and across Europe but especially in England. See side bar “Update Across the Pond”. I blogged as the Conservatives were winning off year elections, picking up seats in previous “safe liberal” areas. We were doing the opposite. I became enthralled with David Cameron. See side bar. It was like the old Bizarro world of the comics. Everything seemed turned exactly upside down.

That was then and it is still true. The conservatives are still gaining in the polls and are clobbering the Liberals by larger and larger margins.

I’ve tried to understand why they were winning and we weren’t. A lot of reasons jumped out at me. The obvious was that on both sides of the ocean before our election different parties were in power. Both were failing to solve problems both seemed unable to do anything. So both countries were thinking of throwing the Bums out regardless of party. They threw out the Republicans here and are getting ready to throw the Liberals out there.

But as I looked deeper there were more differences. The English conservatives had their act together. They had a better infrastructure from which to showcase their wares. They had the “shadow government system”.

This is ideal. They got to pick who will be in the cabinet if the PM is elected. The “shadow Government” campaigns together. That way the people will be able to see what they are getting. The “shadow government” gets to make plans and tell the voters what their actual alternative solutions to problems are.

It was through this “shadow” system that today shadow chancellor George Osborne will make some astonishingly un politically correct remarks'
This is some good old school conservative stuff baby. While we in America are debating between how much free money it takes to screw in an economy, Osborne in England will be saying things like “People are going to have to "work hard and save hard" if Britain is to get out of the recession”
How about this quote?
"Our banking system is not separate from our economy, it is a reflection of it. Our banks hold a mirror up to the worst excesses of our society," he will say. "And the unsustainable debts in our banks are a reflection of unsustainable debts in our households, our companies and our Government."
How’s this?
The 'money for nothing' society has to end. The age of irresponsibility is over."
George Osborne will give this speech later today or tomorrow because as I write this it is 9:30pm Thurs. And in England it is Friday already and this news is less than an hour old. Some one got a transcript of the speech.

Boy I’d love to hear that speech.

If I can find a copy of it tomorrow I’ll post it. Probably on the side bar, or if it is that good maybe write a post about it.

Can you imagine the hell that the media would put an American Conservative Republican through if that was said here? They would be ridden out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered.

Why not in England? Well they have tried Socialism for a long time now and Brown and his liberals have been in power for ever. The English people are desperate for a chance to try something. Also with the built in “shadow government” system there is an accepted way to say such blasphemy.

Remember too they have the example of Ireland starring them in the face with a system that works.

That blashpemy couldn’t possibly work here.---could it?

Then again maybe such things need to be said by our leaders in this country. Maybe that is what will define our new leaders. Maybe leadership is truly based more upon what is said as how it is said.

Maybe people really are yearning for some substance behind the form. The English Conservatives are showing that it can work. We would do well to pay attention.

Before we dismiss it we should remember it was the Tory Thatcher who helped Reagan come to power. And if you remember it was Reagan who had all the media abuse piled upon him. But it was what Reagan said that mattered. The people allowed him to lead.

Wow. They grow em big over there.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative.

edit. 10;25pm Thurs. From Boehner's office. Reid failed to get cloture by one vote on the omnibus bill. Some one else just said no the free money. Holy Negatives Batman
Regards, LD

edit. 10am Fri. Here as promised is the copy of Osborne’s speech.
This is another link. This article discusses the speech.

Hell Yes We're Rocking The Boat

Rocking the boat.
Republicans lost in 2006 and again in 2008. I think it is time to rock the boat. If you don’t want to get any water on your new suit: change clothes. If you don’t want to, or if it’s beneath you, find another job.

After I read the following linked article in Politico by Mike Allen and Andy Barr, I decided that the people who were complaining the most about Michael Steele were the ones who are looking for or afraid of losing their jobs in the GOP hierarchy. The professional politicos think he’s rocking the boat. Indeed he is rocking a boat. Their boat.
It’s human nature I guess. I too would be a bit miffed if someone came in and didn’t hire me, or fired me. Especially if it was a transition from GW’s first to second term then I would expect things would remain the same and only the leadership to change. But it's not and I would expect a clean sweep. From the article it seems plain that Michael Steele feels he has a mandate to change the nature of how the party relates and interacts with it's activists. Because of the last two election cycles I will concede him that mandate.

That’s right, a mandate. Not only do winners get mandates, the losers have an even more immediate one. Winning back what they lost.

He feels that the whole structure needs to be looked at and remade to enable us to win in 2010. I heartily agree.
-----quote from article-----
“He said he’s re-examining the whole structure with an eye to streamlining it and will have most of his team in place by the end of March.”
If he was just pulling in for gas and checking the tires I'd say that's too long, but he's not. Michael's doing a complete overhaul. I'd say that would be pretty quick.

He also said in the piece.
"I want to be about the business of putting in place a good infrastructure that will enable me to go out and build a better brand, stronger brand, for the GOP."
So what does this new brand look like? Well the next two snippets out of the article tell what Steele’s consultant thinks.
Back at headquarters, Dyke said the transition teams are reviewing all the party's big functions -- communications, political, administration, technology, strategy. “Their task has been to look at every line item in the budget, every organizational chart, every position, and recommend a structure and a mode of operating that reflects the necessary change to meet a new campaign environment and a minority status without control of the White House, House or Senate,” he said.
“People on the outside haven’t seen it done this way before,” Dyke added. “The unknown is fearful. ... It is not smoke and mirrors. At the end of this process, we’ll have a much more effective, more targeted, more focused, more efficient party.”
Chairman Steele makes a valid point. I don’t think that changing what you’ve done in the past that resulted in loss is such a bad thing to do. Remember to do the same thing over and over expecting different results is a definition of insanity. Doing it that way does take more time.

I’m glad to see him doing it. I will wait and judge his results.

What I get excited about and the type of thing I see in Steele that I think is good for this party is the bottom up philosophy. The idea that the national party is there not to tell the State parties what to do, rather to help them do what they feel needs doing. Kind of a Republican thing, like letting the parents decide what is best for their children. The next logical step is to have the State party help the County parties etc.

Another quote from Steele is a case in point. This time using the term “service” in a department title. The new emphasis is obvious. Everyone will be reminded that they are taking orders from the Bottom Up.
Steele said, “because I want to orient the thinking for those who work in that department that they’re in the business of providing service to the members of the RNC — our state party leadership around the country.”
Then the article quoted him saying something right after my heart. What I’ve been talking about for a long time. To paraphrase, we need to stand firm on our core ideas and base our actions on them. Build solutions to problems around those ideas and continually reinforce the idea in people’s mind that those ideas work and will work for them. Show by example how our solutions will work for them.
Asked how he would win back swing voters with a frankly conservative message, Steele replied: “How did Reagan do it? How did Obama do it the other way? You’ve got to say what you stand for and then make it very clear to people that when it comes to those things that matter to them, what you stand for works for them.”
I would have been more direct than that and that is why I’m not a politician. I would of said when asked that question. Do not imply that being frank in your opinion or Conservative in your message won’t work.

Reagan was frank and conservative and both the message and the messenger were trusted. Why not ask me how I planned to win those swing states by being slick and devious or by downright lying like the Democrat Party did. Both ways have been proven to work. I just prefer the frank way. As long as there is that choice in the minds of the voters I’m happy to leave the choice up to them.

Going hand in hand with this flap over Michael Steele’s reorganizing the party is the idea that the party itself is trying to get away from the corruption of it’s core values brought about by it’s acceptance of money from “Big” business.

Big business long ago found out that it is easier and more profitable to go along with and help government get Big. No matter who is in power, a back door way to get rid of competition from the smaller companies; especially those who lack the money to lobby.

Some may call it a symbiotic collusion. I call it parasitic. The bottom line is that the bigness of both damages the freedom of the small business person. The essence of Free Enterprise is corrupted when the deck is stacked against the small businessman vs. the corporation.

In the political fight against the money and volunteers the Democrats get from the Big Unions, the Republicans were left to rely on large donations from the corporate world. What they found out was that the corporate world wanted to be on the side of the winner and that to insure that they often would hedge their bets by donating to both parties.

The infrastructure (bureaucracy) built around the steady money from Big business is exactly what Mr. Steele has in mind to change I believe. That infrastructure is what fosters the “same old same old”.

A growing group in the Party started to feel that needed changing. Michael Steele was one of the candidates for the National Chair that promised change.

The Republican National Committee Woman from my own home district Holly Hughes was one of the early supporters of Michael Steele as National Chair.

At our State Republican Convention she wore a label and made a pitch for small donations. A new program of a dollar a day was started. She is working hard on that. The leadership under Michael Steele is looking for smaller donations. He is looking for more PEOPLE who make the donations regardless of size.

Our State Convention Keynote Speaker was Haley Barbour. He talked of now as being the perfect time to do what we need to do, rearrange our party from the bottom up. (his idea not mine lol) He also told about how while he liked big donations, he loved small donations more. The reason he said came from his experience that the person or corporation that gave you $5,000 usually would give your opponent the same, while the one that donated 20 bucks you knew would give you their vote. The other was a toss up. The bottom line in an election is not how much money you end up with but the number of votes.

I talked with Holly Hughes at our Lincoln Day Dinner and said I was glad she backed Michael Steele. She was happy I noticed. I will have to try and see what she and the Michigan Party are doing with the small donation idea.

We do have to rock the boat and get the deadwood out. We have to be seaworthy and skimming right along when the good ship Obama yells “Abandon Ship”. We must be ready to pick up as many fleeing the sinking ship as possible. We must be willing to welcome them all aboard.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Empowering. The Strength of Freedom

Mr. Walsh during CPAC said that the main power the government has is their ability to punish law breakers. He further went on to suggest that the biggest power the bureaucrat has gathered unto itself is the ability to select which law by which to prosecute someone. For if there are enough laws then it becomes an arbitrary decision as to which law is to be used to prosecute someone. More to the point which person to prosecute. It seems that it has gotten so bad that first you pick a target person, then easily find a crime to fit.

The number of laws has increased in lockstep with the growth of the bureaucracy.

We have forgotten the idea of criminal intent as being the key to a criminal behavior. An excellent site below about how the laws are out of control.

Nor should we not dismiss the idea that like smaller government enhances our individual freedoms, so too less laws.

Something else I picked up on CPAC that seems relevant to this discussion, was a quote from George Washington. “George Washington Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
I would add; like fire, government is a useful tool, but can easily get out of control. I would also add that in order to control it once started it takes ever vigilant and I might also add, brave firefighters.

How we relate all these ideas to the un- political person will have to do with the success we have as a party in the upcoming elections.

It seems simple if we can show people that the freedoms they are losing is in direct proportion to the size of government.

That is simple. Too simple. People can’t relate to that. That won’t make them want to turn down a stimulus check.

How do we make freedom important. The reverse is easy. It is easy to make freedom seem unimportant. The Liberals do this through scaring everyone with their constant doomsday predictions. We will turn to a higher power in times of stress for Hope. The foxhole prayer being the prime example. Ever wonder why the Liberals have tried to get God out of our seats of power? Perhaps they want that power unto themselves.

They want people turning to government and not anything else. They certainly don’t want the public to think that the individual alone can solve their problems.

So how do we get someone to turn down a stimulus check. Or “free” services?

I usually don’t pay my bill till it comes due. I definitely won’t start a budget until I prove to myself beyond a reasonable doubt that it is absolutely necessary. In my case it wasn’t until I suffered through enough miserable failures without one.

So how do we get someone to turn down a stimulus check? You can’t.

I’m an alcoholic and I quit drinking. I joined AA. AA didn’t stop me from drinking. They said you can if you want. But it isn’t easy. If you want we have a way that has worked in the past. Remember it’s a hard thing, but we can help if you try. I quit they helped. They were there and accessible when I needed them.

There are all kinds of alcoholics in and out of AA. The ones that have quit for a long time share one thing. I trust them in that one thing. They are serious and want to help if you are serious about quitting drinking. The reason I trust them is that they have proved by doing what they say.

What should Republicans do?

We call it planting a seed. In a fertile field the thought will grow. Our seeds have to be actual concrete examples that work. Simple common sense such as a penny earned is a penny saved. But then we need to follow through and actually earn that penny and save it. That is the hard part for us as a party and for the person we are telling not to spend the money. People remember that we earned the penny but then we spent it then we borrowed to get more. All the while we kept preaching a penny earned is a penny saved.

I saw a lot of people in AA talk the talk then drink the shot. Their judgment will come in the doing not the talking.

I used to say in AA the program is simple but hard as nails. You simply have to get up and not drink. Like waking up and just being perfect all day. I used to scoff at that sort of advice. Scoff actually being a temperate expression for some of the criticisms I laid at the advice givers feet. But I will tell you that I am much further along in my pursuit of happiness than I had been. With a much nicer opinion of myself.

There is a contentment in doing “work” if at the end of the day you can say you did your best. The freedom from making excuses for who you are and reasons why you can’t change, opens up a wholly different world, a brighter world, a saner world.

So Vote Republican for the Freedom. Start to work for the Freedom. From Fear that you may lose it if you have to. But start. To teach youself what you already know isn’t hard. Teach yourself that we all deserve that freedom. In that effort you will learn how to use that freedom to help yourself and others keep it.

Fight for the Rule of Law. The law that limit’s the power others can have over you. The Freedom to control your own life. The Freedom to keep that deadly “force”, that “fire” at bay, and the “fearful master” in chains where it belongs. Under the lock and key of the Constitution.

Talk about empowering.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative.


Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Republican You Say?

Gary Hart off of the Huffington Post wrote the following piece.
A Democrat, Gary Hart (another failed Presidential Contender) is calling for Republicanism to come to the forefront in America.
He tells of what Pericles said 2500 years ago.
“(Pericles’)oration, praised men who were worthy of the city and declared those "useless" who took no interest in the well-being of Athens.” Gary Hart didn’t mention how much they were getting paid to be worthy. Gary Hart also seems to forget that it was the Spartans who gave the final and fullest measure of themselves to defend Athens. They gave their life. Nor does he seem to remember all the scorn and derision the liberals heaped upon the movie about the Spartans. Nor did he remember that the Spartans would kill any children that were not strong enough or brave enough. They would take the children away from their mothers. They would basically torture their children in order to make them strong. If he didn’t forget, then torture of innocent children must be what he envisions in the “Service America Act” put forward by Kennedy and Hatch and championed by President Obama. Perhaps I'm being too literal. Servitude may be all he's after.

Hart goes further by saying.
{We consider ourselves a democracy, yet we salute the flag of a republic. No idea is more central to the concept of a republic than what used to be called civic virtue, but what today would be called "giving something back," or public service}
I would agree only to change the “giving something back” to “Taking Something From” Notice I didn’t say “Taking Something Back” Because what they are taking wasn’t their’s to begin with.
I too would add “what price virtue” How much do we have to pay these new volunteers??
As if in response another quote of Gary’s states.
The costs of Serve America are minuscule in an age of massive bank bailouts, industrial rescues, and mortgage underwriting
Yeah right. According to our President himself see the following link
I guess the Democrats think the amount we spend on the military is “minuscule”?? I guess when you think in terms of Multi Trillions then maybe the price of buying the People’s virtue isn’t so much.

BTW what is the next amount? What’s above a Trillion? We are already talking multi Trillion, I mean what is a thousand Trillion. We will need a name for that sooner than we think. Is Godzillion a word? Perhaps “obamillion”? Or perhaps to pair up to Orwellian how about Oillion? Maybe just plain old revolution oops I mean social evolution will take care of the problem.

I would like to add that it is precisely at the point when we have to pay (Bribe) the masses that we turn from a Republic into a Democracy.

Please see side bar and video entitled “Not Democracy”
Next think of an oligarchy and how we are continuing towards one.

I would also add that when he quotes Quentin Skinner
"performance of our public duties is indispensable to the maintenance of our own liberty."
Hart should and probably was aware the Skinner would further add to that quote by saying that the liberty of the individual was dependent upon those given to it by the state, and therefore subservient to it. Here linked below is a footnote about Skinner.
See page 62 footnote 20.
He along with Hobbes agree that the individual’s freedom was subservient to the State.

Forgive me for getting too long winded and academic, but I just get so upset when I see the Liberals latch onto our Conservative ideals to help sell their Liberal agenda. How often did we hear Obama talk of tax cuts during the election. He even mentioned that he would be willing to consider drilling for oil. Obama was in favor of the right to bear arms and remember Clinton running as a quasi conservative? Now they are claiming to be Republicans.

Next they’ll be claiming that they want to double the foreign aid, or go from soft diplomacy to that backed up by military force. Seems like I remember something different something about diplomacy not military force is what we need to create a peaceful world.

If you notice they don’t turn what they say into a lie until after they’re elected or caught in the act. Then they simply change the definition of the terms to fit their agenda. Republicanism my ass. We all remember the definition Bill tried changing when he said “I did not have sex with that woman”

Well talk is cheap, like my mother always said, “the proof’s in the pudding”. I’ve tasted it and am gagging already. In 4 years the American people who’ve given up their freedom to the “New Republicanism” of Hart and Obama, will be running to find a toilet so they won’t soil themselves.

One thing you can be sure of. I will not start calling myself a Democrat to get your sympathy money or vote. Only If I wanted to steal your freedom.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative.

Monday, March 2, 2009

The Great and Wonderful Wizard of Oz

I’ve got a problem.

What do I want to happen to that problem?

I want it to go away. Forever.

You too probably feel the same when faced with a problem.

As our societal problems have risen, the government has volunteered to help solve them. We gratefully oblige them. We give them billions to do that. To make the problems go away.

Roads and bridges and dams they seemed ok at. We gave them more money. They seemed to hire private companies to do the planning and actual construction. They just funneled the money (keeping their fair(?) share) with which they could make this, their situations, permanent.

We gave them more money out of kindness.

When they started to get into social engineering, they started to try to do the job themselves. We started to see the cracks in the system, but they were trying, and the problems they told us were getting taken care of. But now I'm wondering. How long have we been fighting the war on poverty? As Anne Coulter wondered at CPAC, I too am curious as to what the Liberals have as an exit strategy on that war. We haven’t won it and our costs have been high and our people our still suffering, just ask a liberal. Shouldn’t we at least set the date for a pullout? It’s been over 40 years.

Well habits die hard. We give them more money.

What does the government do about a problem. They codify it they make it law then they set up a bureaucracy to confuse the issue. The bureaucracy keeps making itself and the problem bigger and more complex.
They create so many laws that if the old saying is still true that “ignorance is no excuse”, then we all (ALL) should just admit that someplace somewhere there is a law we have violated at some time in some way and we should all make our way voluntarily to the court house and jails. Who after all is not ignorant of at least one Federal law? Try reading the tax law some decade for example.

To say the government does nothing about a problem is wrong. They make the problem bigger and more impressive to encourage our elected officials to give them more money.

There is never too much money for a good bureaucrat to justify spending then wanting more.

So we give them more out of frustration mixed with fear.

How long do we have to put up with this? How often do we have to listen to this garbage before we do something. How much individual freedom must we lose before we demand something else?

Taxes are obvious, the money comes out of our pocket. Tax payers will soon get tired of paying higher taxes. The cost of a continuing pile of regulations upon our business’ is not so obvious. But if you count as taxes anything that the gov. does to take money out of our pocket then, regulation is indeed a tax. Regulation and their bodies have continued as the # 1 growth industry in government. Sooner or later the extra costs out of pocket for consumers will be too much. People who don’t pay direct taxes pay these and they will go broke too. But it will take longer.

So we still give them more money, out of fear.

But we are starting to wonder if they can make the problems really go away. Those that we put our hope in to solve our problems tend to solve their own first and our problems get lost in the shuffle.

The next link shows the irony of it all. Also the choice we still have over who will spend the money we earn even on charities.

But it is almost too late. The previous Bush league Wizard gave us glimpses of the scam. Now the new Great and Wonderful One has lifted the curtain high for all to see. There’s something to be said for boldness I guess.

He has decided that the rich should not be allowed to give as much to charities because I guess he feels the money is ill gotten, nefarious or that they just have more than their fair share.

The government in this new plan is hoping to reduce the deductions people can take for donating to charities. In the final irony the government says, not to worry, that they are going to raise another 100 million in tax money to cover the shortfall that they can then give back to those same charities and foundations. (Let the government into banking and now they think they’re running a freaking hedge fund.) Sounds like a control freak to me.

Eventually we will give them less money, out of a survival instinct, and or just a plain lack of ability to pay more.

Or simply we will pick up our marbles and play another game out of anger.

Eventually we will decide that more problems can be solved with fewer middlemen.

This will come out of that nasty sreak of freedom we seem to possess. When we do, then we can start to keep more of our money and to enjoy our freedom of the pursuit of happiness.

Hopefully we can do this before the Great Oz has taken it all and has run the country out of money.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative.